Who's the winner and what does everybody else lose?

Group's Pepsi deal goes flat. Cute title. I approve.

What interests me about this is something most of us of a certain age either don't care about or don't know, which is Pepsi advertising in the schools. I'm not currently walking through the schools, but as long ago as twenty years ago I walked through a high school and was both surprised and dismayed to see attractive posters in the halls, compliments of one soft drink company or another. For that matter, soft drink dispensing machines were a surprise, too. And so on. No, I'm not a purist. I just finished a Coca Cola myself. Yes, I know it doesn't have any health benefits and the company itself is highly suspect. I guess I have some issues of my own to address, but right now I'm addressing something else.

In our competitive world of winners and losers, anybody who lives in Dublin, Ohio, the location of interest here, is an economic winner by almost any standard. Of course, "winning" is relative, wouldn't you say?

To make a relatively boring article as short as possible, Dublin schools contracted with Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Columbus Ohio to receive a portion of sales proceeds in exchange for advertising and an exclusivity contract. Apparently how it was handled on the Dublin schools end has caused some difficulties with the school administration.

I don't want to get bogged down in the specific details, contracts, legalities, and misunderstandings and assumptions here. You can read the article for that. Instead, let's look at something else.

Why is it acceptable to have soft drinks sold and advertised in the schools in the first place? Can the school district not raise the funds needed to run the schools? Remember, this is Dublin, Ohio, wealthy by most standards. Who is the real winner in this acceptable practice?

I have a gut feeling it's Pepsi. They dangle a bit of money at people in exchange for…what? I suppose Pepsi doesn't really care how the school district spends the money it will get from them. Pepsi will obviously make more than what the school district will receive.

I don't think Pepsi gives a rat's *ss about the judged unconstitutional ways Ohio has funded its schools, nor about the incredible discrepancies between the richest and the poorest school districts. I'm guessing Pepsi doesn't care, either, about what's taught, (and not taught) in the classrooms.

All I know is Pepsi makes a deal with a school district to advertise in their schools, and sell their product without competition. In return, the school district gets some money. There is just something about this that stinks, and I don't care that the practice is widespread and "everbody does it." It still stinks in a state that hasn't figured out how to fund the schools fairly and adequately in the first place.